[Congressional Record Volume 170, Number 84 (Wednesday, May 15, 2024)]
[House]
[Pages H3261-H3266]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENHANCING SOCIAL SECURITY
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Stauber). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 9, 2023, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson)
is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening with my
colleagues to have a discussion about the Nation's number one
antipoverty program for the elderly and the Nation's number one
antipoverty program for children. More veterans rely on Social Security
disability than they do on the VA.
Mr. Speaker, we want to make sure that we are addressing this to our
colleagues. Since you are in the chair from Minnesota, Mr. Speaker, I
want you to know that you have more than 189,000 Social Security
recipients in your district; more than 147,000 retirees; more than
20,000 disabled; 8,000 widows; 9,000 children.
Here is the key, Mr. Speaker, $335 million a month comes into your
district for those Social Security recipients. Where do they spend it?
Right back in their district.
Yet, it has been more than 53 years since Congress has enhanced
Social Security. Richard Nixon was President of the United States the
last time Social Security was enhanced.
Democrats are bound and determined to make sure that we get something
simple like a vote here in Congress to help out all of those people in
your district, Mr. Speaker, as well as highlight why this is so
important.
Seventy million Americans rely on Social Security. Ten thousand baby
boomers a day become eligible for Social Security. Forty thousand
Americans rely on Social Security in and of itself as their primary
tenet for retirement.
It is the Nation's number one antipoverty program for the elderly and
for children. That is why our colleagues have taken to the floor today,
so that the American people understand that what is between them and
enhancement to this program is a vote. It is a vote on Social Security
2100, that will extend the solvency of Social Security, but, as
importantly, expand benefits, including making sure that the more than
23 million people that pay taxes on Social Security no longer have to
do that.
What could be a better bipartisan plan than helping out every single
individual in everyone's district and also providing for 23 million
Americans, not the wealthiest Americans but the everyday citizens who
work weeklong to provide for their families and pay into a system and
haven't received an enhancement in 53 years.
That is why Joe Neguse is here as part of leadership that has
strongly endorsed this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse).
{time} 1900
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I thank the
distinguished gentleman from Connecticut, our former Caucus chair, for
his clarion call that he has issued year after year, month after month,
and day after day to protect and strengthen Social Security.
It couldn't be more important, and we couldn't be more grateful for
his leadership and the leadership of so many of my colleagues who have
joined us tonight on the House floor to talk to the American people
about the ways in which House Democrats are protecting critical
programs like Social Security and Medicare and the myriad ways in
which, unfortunately, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle are
doing the exact opposite.
I will give you but one example, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the
latter. I know you are familiar with the Republican Study Committee,
the largest caucus within the Republican Conference. I don't know if
the American people are familiar with it.
Eighty percent of the Republican Conference consider themselves
members of this committee. A hundred percent of House Republican
leadership count themselves among the members of this committee. The
former chairman of the Republican Study Committee is now the Speaker of
the U.S. House of Representatives.
Why do I bring up the Republican Study Committee? Well, it might
interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that just 2 months ago, the
Republican Study Committee issued a budget for 2025. Again, this is a
committee that has 80 percent of the Republican Conference in its
membership. This backward budget plan is incredibly revealing.
What does it do? It upends critical programs that American families
depend on, makes draconian cuts to Medicare and Social Security with a
plan that increases the retirement age to 69, forcing Americans to work
longer for less, a plan that cuts disability benefits and erodes care
for children, making it more expensive to care for our families.
Their plan raises Medicare costs for seniors, takes away the
program's ability to negotiate prescription drug costs, and repeals the
$35 insulin and the $2,000 out-of-pocket caps that House Democrats, the
Members gathered here on the floor this evening, fought so vigorously
to enact in the 117th Congress.
Just to be clear, Mr. Speaker, although we are here tonight to talk
about Social Security and Medicare and our efforts to protect,
strengthen, and expand both of those programs, and Republican efforts
to dismantle them, it is worth noting that this is Police Week.
Notwithstanding the many statements made by my colleagues on the other
side of the aisle concerning their purported support of law
enforcement, their budget tells a very different story. Why? How? I
encourage every American to go to page 148 of the Republican Study
Committee's budget. What you will find is clear, unambiguous, plain
language that states that they would like to reduce funding for
community-oriented policing services, the COPS Program, a program that
the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania has fought to expand for
years, a program that is funding the hiring of law enforcement officers
in my district in Colorado and countless other jurisdictions across our
great country, a program that is critical to law enforcement's
abilities to provide for public safety in our country, and a program
that they intend to cut.
Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, insofar as one were to glean essential
observation from a review, a cursory review of their budget, it is
simple: House Republicans are uninterested in tackling issues that
matter to the American people.
We will not let them cut Social Security. We won't let them cut
Medicare. We won't let them cut law enforcement funding. That much is
clear.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Colorado, our esteemed leader, for his contribution. I would point out
as well that the repeal of WEP and GPO, which directly impacts police
officers and firefighters, is contained within our proposal. It needs a
vote.
Social Security has no impact on the debt or deficit and, as
President Biden has proposed, is fully paid for by--most Americans
don't even realize this--lifting the cap on people making over
$400,000. Doing so allows us to enhance the program for the first time
in 20-plus years and also makes sure that we extend the solvency of the
program.
Someone who knows that extraordinarily well is the gentleman from New
Jersey, who also serves on the Social Security Subcommittee.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for putting his work
and soul on the line for the last several years.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the more than 124,000
constituents in the Ninth District of north Jersey who rely on Social
Security each and every month.
Social Security is one of America's greatest success stories. After
nearly 90 years, it still stands as a monument to decency, dignity, and
the birthright of hardworking Americans.
Yet, throughout its storied history, it has been under attack. Going
back
[[Page H3262]]
to 1935, it has been the subject of attacks and lies from day one. The
Republican Study Committee just referred to, which represents three-
quarters of the House Republicans, proposed slashing Social Security
benefits by $718 billion.
If I was sitting at home right now, I would be asking if that means
me. Does that mean my benefits, which I have paid into? They are going
to vote now and take it away? It is the only thing I live on.
Republican leadership wants to create a so-called fiscal commission
in our government funding bill. That is a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Without aggressive action, Social Security lurches toward insolvency.
Congress has a sacred responsibility to fight for its future.
That is why I am standing with Representative Larson on his Social
Security 2100 Act to ensure the long-term strength and solvency of
Social Security. I will keep standing as long as we have to fight. We
are not going home. The Social Security 2100 Act provides paid-for
benefit enhancements while not raising taxes on middle-class families.
It is a no-brainer.
Our bill ends the painful 5-month disability waiting period. Imagine
that. It would ensure Americans suffering with permanent disorders like
Huntington's disease get the help they need without red tape or delay.
The bill eliminates the windfall elimination provision so that
firefighters, police, teachers, and others get the full benefits that
they have earned.
With the Social Security 2100 Act, we are fighting for our seniors
who have worked their entire lives and rely on Social Security to make
ends meet.
I remember the first congressional election I ran in, Mr. Speaker, in
the year 1996--which wasn't yesterday. I remember I walked into the
hall of seniors in the spring of that year before the election actually
was on. I thought I knew everything about Social Security, but I never
expected to get the first question about Social Security. I was asked:
What are you going to do about Social Security? One of our seniors
asked that question in 1996, and here we are, 28 years later. What do
you know?
I will not vote for a convenient increase in the age requirement.
They want seniors to work and drop dead so that they collect under the
ground, I guess. They won't be above ground.
I will not vote for cuts of Social Security in order to pay for it.
We are fighting for working families. We must get this done for the
American people. There are no excuses.
Those watching, call in. Let us know what you think. This is your
money, our money.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to
Speaker Johnson that he has 158,000 Social Security recipients in his
district, and in Louisiana, they receive $233 million in monthly
benefits. Think about what that does for economic development for those
people. Where do they spend that money?
Linda Sanchez knows this. Linda Sanchez, who also serves on the Ways
and Means Committee and on the subcommittee, understands how vitally
important this is and also that more than 5 million of our Americans
receive below-poverty-level checks from Social Security after having
paid into the system all of their lives. The majority of them happen to
be women, and the majority of them are women of color.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Sanchez).
Ms. SANCHEZ. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague John
Larson, who has been at the forefront of advocating for changes to the
Social Security system that will ensure its longevity for the next
generation and generations to come and will increase the benefits for
those who currently receive Social Security.
In contrast, the Republicans are proposing cuts to Social Security,
and those cuts will harm millions of Americans.
Make no mistake, cutting Social Security is a direct attack on the
Latino population in this country. Social Security benefits are a
significant portion of retirement income for Latinos. Forty-two percent
of Latino couples and 59 percent of unmarried Latino individuals rely
on Social Security for 90 percent or more of their retirement income.
Yet, my Republican colleagues are hellbent on cutting those Social
Security benefits. Their proposed budget would cut Social Security
benefits for 253 million people, and Latino communities, sadly, will
pay the price.
Without Social Security, 47 percent of Latino retirees would be
living in poverty. Mr. Larson frequently says that Social Security is
the most successful antipoverty program that this country has ever
created.
In contrast to Republicans, who want to cut Social Security or
increase the age at which you can begin to draw on it, Democrats are
committed to protecting all people from living in poverty. Democrats
want to invest in programs like Social Security so that more Americans,
including Latinos, can afford to retire.
One of the ingenious parts of Social Security 2100 will increase the
cap for those who pay into the Social Security system. I frequently
give this example. I think it is important. Many Americans don't know
that once you earn above a certain income, you stop paying into the
Social Security system. That means that a professional athlete, like,
say, a professional baseball player who makes millions of dollars a
year in income, in their first at-bat of the season, they hit that cap
and pay no more money into Social Security the rest of the year.
I think that we can fix Social Security, increase its longevity, and
protect communities like the Latino communities and the women who
depend predominantly on Social Security for their retirement income.
All we are asking for is a vote on this legislation.
I have no doubt that if we put that bill on the floor, it would pass
by a large margin. Give us a vote.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
California for again highlighting what we are asking for: a vote.
Imagine the United States Congress actually voting.
Here is the deal: If you have a better idea, please bring it to the
floor. Let's vote on it. Don't we all agree that this is something that
all Americans need?
Republicans in their hearts know that the American people desperately
need this. I know Representative Jodey Arrington understands this on
the Budget Committee. More than 50 years since we have enhanced a
program for the people of this country is outrageous.
{time} 1915
You can embrace tax cuts for billionaires as though they needed them,
and yet, a tax cut for a person working, who still finds themselves
working after they retire, is double taxed on their Social Security.
There should be outrage on this floor and demanding a vote. God only
knows that if you have got a better idea or a better program, please
put it forward. Let's do the democratic thing, and vote on it.
The gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo) campaigned on this
throughout his effort to be successfully elected to the United States
Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Amo).
Mr. AMO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Larson) for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address an issue that is deeply personal
to me and many Americans, the sacred trust of Medicare and Social
Security.
Mr. Speaker, I was raised by a mom who worked double shifts as a
nurse in Rhode Island in nursing homes. I grew up understanding how
critical Medicare and Social Security are for seniors in the Ocean
State.
Now, as the Congressman for Rhode Island's First Congressional
District, I am committed to expanding the promise of these critical
programs.
Democrats know how to get this done.
Through the landmark Inflation Reduction Act, Congress authorized
Medicare to negotiate the price of prescription drugs, capping the cost
of insulin for seniors at just $35 a month and limiting out-of-pocket
expenses to $2,000 a year.
This Congress, we have committed to Congressman Larson's Social
Security 2100 Act, a bill that would shore up benefits by ensuring the
wealthiest Americans play by the same rules as everyone else.
[[Page H3263]]
Yet, as I stand here today, I can't help but contrast these essential
measures with the callous budget proposal on the other side of the
aisle.
Make no mistake, the Republican Study Committee's proposal is a
backward budget. If enacted, it would cut Social Security benefits for
more than 250 million Americans nationwide.
In my home State of Rhode Island, the Republican budget slashes
benefits for 74 percent of the population, forcing three out of every
four residents to work longer for less.
In a similar way, Republicans propose undoing the Inflation Reduction
Act and jacking up the price of prescription drugs that seniors rely
on.
No one, and I mean no one, should ever have to doubt if Social
Security and Medicare will be there for them in their retirement. That
is why I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to come
together. Let's save Social Security together by passing Congressman
Larson's bill.
Let's expand, not repeal, the healthcare savings that Medicare
seniors have seen under the Inflation Reduction Act.
Most importantly, let's abandon this misguided idea that punishing
seniors, pushing austerity cuts, and raising costs is somehow the
solution to the problems we face.
Mr. Speaker, we don't have to choose between ensuring solvency and
safeguarding the benefits of millions of Americans. We can and we
should do both. By having a vote on the Social Security 2100 Act, we
will.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Rhode Island for his comments, and I wanted to say this, as well, that
this is a bill that was constructed by more than 350 different groups
across this great country and by Members of this body who put together
their ideas.
The Ways and Means Committee merely took the great ideas of our
colleagues and put them together--ideas that have been endorsed by the
National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, Social
Security Works, the Alliance for Retired Americans, the California
Alliance for Retired Americans, Paralyzed Veterans of America,
Strengthen Social Security Coalition, the NAACP, and the list goes on.
The gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois Frankel) understands this, and
Florida probably leads the country in terms of the number of seniors
that it has in their districts. As we pointed out before to the
Speaker, every district receives money--$364 million a month, but it
has been that way for more than 50-plus years. These programs need to
be enhanced and extended, not cut.
The provision by the Republican Study Committee, if there is nothing
done by 2034, Social Security is cut by 20 percent. Instead, they are
calling to raise the age now and cut Social Security by 21 percent
today. How does that possibly make any sense?
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Lois
Frankel) who understands this.
Ms. LOIS FRANKEL of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank Mr. Larson for his
leadership on this issue, and I thank Mr. Neguse for getting us here.
I think I have joined Mr. Larson on this discussion for about 10
years or more now.
I want to tell you about one of my constituents. Her name is Janet
Zweiback. She is in her eighties. She lives in Delray Beach, Florida.
She is retired. She lost her dad at a very early age, and so, she
watched her mom struggle with their own family bills. To help the
family, Janet began working at the age of 17. Now, I have to get my
math right. She has been working 50 years, so I guess that makes her--I
don't know, someone add that up for me.
Here is the point: Let me tell you some of the things that she has
done over these years. She was a nurse working in a hospital, working
countless hours taking care of patients. She moved to Florida, and she
became a director of a skilled nursing facility. Then she worked with
Alzheimer's patients at Alzheimer's Community Care, probably one of the
most difficult assignments a healthcare provider could have. She also
managed one of the crisis center hotlines.
She retired about 8 years ago and now is one of the 66 million
Americans, almost 200,000 seniors in my district--or as I like to say,
seasoned adults; we are seasoned adults in my home district of Palm
Beach County--relying on Social Security to meet their needs.
Mr. Speaker, I liked the point Mr. Larson made that not only does
Social Security meet the needs of so many of these seniors, but our
seniors are great economic generators. I know where I live, if not for
the seniors' economic activity, we would be in pretty bad shape.
Janet told me that she fears that without Social Security she would
have to turn to her children somewhat like her mother turned to her
when she was young.
Here it is. She has worked her whole life paying into Social Security
to get benefits. She and millions of other Americans, nurses,
schoolteachers, janitors, construction workers, they worked under the
sacred promise that when they turned 65, they would be able to retire
with comfort and dignity.
Now House Republicans want to break that promise.
Their recently proposed budget slashes Social Security benefits,
raises the retirement age, raises Medicare costs, all while promising
another giant tax break for their wealthy friends and large
corporations. I will say this, and I hope we all agree, that no one who
works their entire life should retire into poverty.
Social Security is an earned benefit that Americans have already paid
for with each and every one of their paychecks, and President Biden and
House Democrats and Senators are committed to defending it from
Republican cuts and securing it with meaningful legislation that
requires our wealthiest citizens to pay their fair share.
I am proud to stand here with my colleagues standing up for Social
Security, keeping it secure, and honoring our most seasoned citizens.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Florida for her comments, and I reiterate that all we are asking for is
a vote.
For those citizens tuned in to C-SPAN and listening tonight, if you
are saying, What do you mean? Why is it that you can't get a vote on
this in the United States Congress? Good question. Call your
Representative and ask them why they aren't voting to improve a program
that hasn't been enhanced in more than 50 years.
We hear from the other side all the time about what we need to do in
terms of cuts. Imagine, this is what they would like to cut. If they
have got a better idea, they should bring it to the floor. The way a
democracy works is it is a debate about ideas, and then there is
actually a vote that is cast.
The gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms. Stansbury) understands this and
understands how important the money coming into her district is
monthly, as well.
She understands how vitally important Social Security is to our
economy, and not just to our retirees, but to our disabled and to their
spouses and to children. The genius of Franklin Delano Roosevelt is
what keeps entrepreneurialism and capitalism alive and allows people to
take risks is because they know that there is a safety net there for
its people.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Ms.
Stansbury).
Ms. STANSBURY. Mr. Speaker, in New Mexico, we care for our elders. It
is a part of our culture. It is a part of who we are because our elders
are the people who birthed us, who raised us, who cared for us. They
are our grandparents and our parents, our aunties and our uncles, our
veterans, the people who carry our histories, our cultures, our
languages, and our traditions.
That is why it is so outrageous to me as a New Mexican that the House
GOP would even consider, no less propose, to gut the critical programs
that support our elders--Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.
In New Mexico, thousands of New Mexicans depend on Social Security--
our seniors, our elders, people living with disabilities. Over 450,000
New Mexicans depend on Medicare. That is over 20 percent of our State's
population. New Mexicans depend on these programs to access lifesaving
healthcare, to provide for their families, to put a roof over their
head, to put food on the table.
[[Page H3264]]
Before Social Security, our elders were left with nothing. Before
Medicaid and Medicare, our seniors and our low-income families could
not access lifesaving healthcare.
{time} 1930
In New Mexico, over 12 percent of our seniors are considered low-
income and living below the poverty line. Thousands are struggling to
maintain housing, to have basic services, to have a roof over their
head, and to put food on their table.
Let me be clear: these programs save lives, and they have secured our
elders for generations.
New Mexicans and all Americans should be able to live without fear
that politicians here in Washington are going to use their lives for
political gain, but here we are on the House floor. The GOP is playing
politics with the lives of our seniors proposing to gut the fundamental
programs that have supported them for generations.
We already know what happens when Federal programs are cut. Hospitals
close, food insecurity rises, and critical programs disappear. That is
why we are fighting as House Democrats and the Biden administration to
protect our seniors, to protect these programs, and to ensure that they
are there for generations to come.
That is why we are fighting to protect Social Security and our
healthcare services. It is why we took on Big Pharma 2 years ago and
won. It is why we passed the Inflation Reduction Act which has the
largest single expansion of Medicaid since the passage of the
Affordable Care Act. It is why we fought to lower prescription drug
costs. It is why we capped insulin prices for every American, and it is
why I fought in the State legislature to end State taxes on Social
Security benefits in New Mexico.
I ask my colleagues: Is this how you care for your elders?
Is this how they taught you and raised you?
Are these the values that you were raised with?
I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is not how we treat our elders in
New Mexico because we know they depend on these programs and because we
know about the lifesaving care and support that are necessary. We know
that we cannot break the promises to those who cared for us and raised
us.
Democrats understand, just like New Mexicans, that we must care for
our seniors. That is why we are fighting back and working every day to
make sure that we secure their well-being.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
New Mexico for her eloquence.
There is no one more eloquent or well-versed on this subject than the
deaness of the House of Representatives. She is someone who has lived
and breathed this issue and has stood up when the other side has
referred to Social Security as an entitlement. It is not an
entitlement. It is an earned benefit that people have paid for.
Mr. Speaker, the only thing they have to do is look at their pay
stub, because on it, it says FICA. That stands for Federal insurance.
It is not an entitlement. It is a Federal Insurance Contributions.
Whose?
The people of the United States of America who have paid into this
program and that Congress has not enhanced.
This debate is not only about protecting Social Security, it is about
expanding benefits that haven't been expanded in more than 50 years.
I commend President Biden for having the courage and the temerity on
this floor in the State of the Union message to speak directly to the
American people and even those colleagues on the other side who try to
decry the efforts of Social Security and the President's plan to make
sure that it is solvent by lifting the cap--imagine that, Mr. Speaker--
on people making over $400,000.
Marcy Kaptur understands this thoroughly when she talks to people in
Ohio who are infuriated and who say: Well, wait a minute, you are
telling me that a person making $50,000, $75,000, and $100,000 pays
throughout the year, but somebody making over $400,000 is done paying
in January?
Or as Ms. Sanchez said, a baseball player after their first at bat?
Nobody has fought harder for working people than the gentlewoman from
Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member, Mr. Larson, for
his persevering leadership on this critical issue to millions and
millions and millions of Americans and Assistant Leader Neguse for his
leadership. I thank them for being here this evening.
I appreciate Mr. Larson yielding me time to highlight the importance
of Social Security but also his tireless work to safeguard and ensure
coverage in Social Security for all Americans who qualify for their
earned benefits which the gentleman and every single Member who got up
here tonight have talked about this evening.
This is not a welfare program. This is an earned benefit.
For nearly a century, America has made a sacred promise: Those who
work hard throughout their lives will benefit from the fruits of their
labor during their retirement.
Social Security promises the safe and secure retirement for tens of
millions of Americans during their golden years. However, we are here
tonight because without action by this House leading, that promise is
at risk.
Like my colleagues, I represent probably over 150,000 retirees, the
majority women, in northwest Ohio who want to see responsible solutions
to protect Social Security going forward. For Ohio that includes
eliminating the windfall penalty.
I agree with Congressman Larson. The billionaire class must join the
vast majority of Americans in paying their fair share into this
critical system. Yes, it is a retirement system, but it is also an
insurance system, it is a disability system, and it is a survivorship
system for children.
By making that happen, the Social Security 2100 Act championed by
Congressman Larson will increase benefits for current and new
beneficiaries. It will protect retirees against inflation, and it will
repeal the windfall elimination provision once and for all.
The Social Security 2100 Act is one of the most important bills
before this Congress, and we must push leadership for a vote on this
House floor as soon as possible. It impacts 68 million beneficiaries.
Already there are 184 House cosponsors of this bill, and Speaker
Johnson could move this bill to the floor for a vote tomorrow.
Additionally, the Social Security Fairness Act has 319 bipartisan
cosponsors, more than two-thirds of the Chamber, and they can't get a
vote. It is stopped up in the leadership.
America made a promise to workers, and Democrats are committed to
making good on that promise.
I am a granddaughter of immigrants who worked at the lowest wage and
worst jobs. First fired; last hired. They simply could not have existed
if it were not for Social Security in their retirement years. The same
is true for our parents.
You see, Mr. Speaker, Social Security is not just a program. It is a
trust, a sacred trust, and that trust is intergenerational.
I may be the only Member here this evening who was present in the
98th Congress in April of 1983 to vote for the refinancing of Social
Security Title 2 for the next generation. It was among the most
critical votes I ever cast, and I remember it to this day. We stood on
this floor, and we cheered. That vote was extremely important because
it refinanced Social Security for the first time in a generation.
It left some work undone, which we must repair, but it resulted from
a brokered compromise between Republican President Ronald Reagan and
House Speaker Tip O'Neill. They knew how to compromise.
Now, Congress must meet its responsibility to do the same for this
generation and those that follow.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that we place in the Record
information about that brokered compromise and also reports from U.S.
News and World Report and other materials that attend to that
extraordinary moment in history.
Let's get the job done. We ask Speaker Johnson to bring up H.R. 2100
for a vote.
I thank Congressman Larson, Congressman Neguse, and Congressman
[[Page H3265]]
Cartwright, who are here this evening as part of this important
messaging to the American people to say: The time is now. Bring up H.R.
2100.
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his extraordinary and
persevering leadership.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from
Ohio. She mentioned Mr. Cartwright who I think epitomizes the concern
that exists in this body, in the Congress, for people who go back home
every week and meet with their constituents.
The constituents of Pennsylvania are fortunate that they have someone
who understands their needs and understands the neglect that Congress
has shown in not addressing the number one anti-poverty program for
elderly and for children in this country.
As difficult as times are now, we need to make sure that minimally we
have a vote. I do not understand the reluctance on the other side to
bring forward legislation and actually vote on it. If you have got a
better idea, Mr. Speaker, or even if you object to the plan, please
tell us what it is that you object to, and what it is about Social
Security and making sure that nobody works all their lives and pays
into a system and then retires into poverty.
Matt Cartwright understands that. He understands his district in
Pennsylvania and the importance of getting this legislation done.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Cartwright).
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I thank Ranking Member Larson for
yielding. I wonder if he would submit himself to a few questions and
engage in a colloquy.
Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. I yield to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. The first question I have, and we heard it tonight,
we heard the statement, the assertion that Social Security for
generations has been the single most important income support program
in America and has lifted millions upon millions of seniors out of
poverty.
Is that true?
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Yes, it is.
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. We have also heard talk about this Republican Study
Committee, which is a group of 80 percent of the Republicans here in
the United States House of Representatives, and it is a committee that
came up with a proposal about Social Security to raise the retirement
age and require seniors to continue working into their senior years.
Is that true?
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Not only is it true, but I think what the
general public needs to understand, and as you point out, Mr.
Cartwright, the saying goes like this: Well, people are living longer,
so, therefore, because they are living longer, what we ought to do is
raise the age.
What the study committee doesn't tell you is that for every year you
raise the age, that is a 7 percent cut in benefits. Oh, so if you raise
the age to 70, that is a 21 percent cut in your benefits going forward.
How is it, from just mere logic, that if you are living longer you
need to live on 21 percent less?
The American people understand this, and that is why they are so
upset, but that is why, Mr. Cartwright, we need a vote.
{time} 1945
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, I have one final question for Ranking
Member Larson.
This idea of raising the retirement age, as the gentleman has
explained very well, constitutes a cut in benefits for every year
Republicans raise it. Economists have worked out how much that is going
to cost out of the Social Security system.
The majority's plan is to raise the retirement age and cut Social
Security benefits by $1.5 trillion, with a t. That is what happens when
you raise the retirement age to 69 the way Republicans want to. Is that
right?
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. That is correct.
I guess the sad thing is that this needs a vote. It needs a debate.
Philosophically, if you believe--and God bless, some on the other side
do believe this is some form of socialism and that everybody ought to
be able to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and be able to
make do for themselves, that you don't need the government to do
anything for you even when you have paid in all of your life to a
program that has been the greatest American program to sustain our
elderly and children.
If you disagree with that, that is terrific, but let's then take that
to the American people. Where do you do that? On the floor of the House
of Representatives, where you actually will debate the issue and put
forward your proposals versus ours.
Isn't that the way democracy is supposed to work, Mr. Cartwright?
Mr. CARTWRIGHT. Mr. Speaker, Ranking Member Larson has that right,
and I thank the gentleman for answering my questions.
Tonight, I am here to speak on behalf of 191,000 people from
northeastern Pennsylvania who depend on Social Security checks coming
in to keep them alive. Probably over 40 percent of them look to those
checks as the only visible means of support that they have.
Now, the Republican Study Committee's fiscal year 2025 proposal comes
along and talks about raising the retirement age to 69. That is fine
if, like us, you fly a desk for a living, but if you do what so many
Americans do, the people who paid paycheck after paycheck after
paycheck into this sacred promise, this insurance program, FICA, if you
do what they do--they have to lift and climb and carry and dig. These
are the people doing manual labor, and they are expected to work well
into their senior years, according to the Republican Study Committee.
Mr. Speaker, this is a breach of a promise. It is a betrayal of the
Americans who paid into this system their entire working lives. It is
unacceptable, and it is something that the Republicans have done year
in and year out.
Remember when, in 2006, Republicans were proposing privatizing the
entire Social Security system, saying that will free up people to
invest their money in the stock market. Then what happened to the stock
market a couple of years later? It cratered. People would have lost
their entire lifesavings, and there would have been no checks of any
nature coming into their post office boxes.
Mr. Speaker, the answer is not cutting benefits. The answer is Social
Security 2100, Mr. Larson's bill, something that I have proudly
supported for over 10 years now.
This bill would increase benefits by 2 percent for all Social
Security beneficiaries for the first time in 52 years. It would
eliminate the WEP, which hurts policemen, firemen, prison correctional
officers, all sorts of public employees.
Rather than cutting benefits, Representative Larson and the
Democratic Party have a plan to protect and enhance Social Security. It
is a plan to put people over politics and make good on our promise to
put American seniors first and pass Social Security 2100.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, my good friend Jodey
Arrington--and I sincerely mean that when I say that. A lot of times on
this floor, we say ``good friend,'' but I appreciate the effort that he
puts into his work.
I bring these cards here this evening just to point out to our
colleagues what it is. We made one for every Member of Congress. This
is just a direct plea: Understand what is going on in your district
because of Social Security.
Citizens have every right to ask why Congress hasn't done anything to
enhance this program, Democrats and Republicans, in more than 50 years,
especially when we know how vital this program is to our own system of
capitalism and entrepreneurialism and what it means to every single one
of our communities.
There is not a better economic development program that Texas will
receive than the individuals in everyone's district receiving their
Social Security checks. They are not going out and buying stock
options. They are buying groceries. They are going to the pharmacy.
They are going to the dry cleaners. They are paying their rent and
mortgages. They are meeting the concerns in their communities. In doing
so, those communities can thrive. It is long overdue--more than 50
years.
[[Page H3266]]
All we are asking for is a vote. If you have a better idea, in a
democracy, the way I was brought up, you put it out there, and then, lo
and behold, we actually have a vote--a vote that requires a debate and
a discussion and then Congress demonstrating what it believes in by
actually casting a vote.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Neguse) for
a final comment.
Mr. NEGUSE. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say one of the many
privileges I have in serving as assistant Democratic leader is having
the opportunity to see firsthand the way in which my colleagues in the
House Democratic Caucus are able to convert their passion and
conviction on consequential public policy issues into action. That is
precisely what the gentleman from Connecticut has done for the better
part of the last decade, from when he first introduced this
legislation.
I am proud to support it. I am proud to support his efforts to
protect and enhance Social Security and to do everything that we can to
ensure that our colleagues' plans on the other side of the aisle to
dismantle this program never see the light of day.
Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague and friend from
Connecticut for yielding.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his
comments, and I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Members are reminded to direct their remarks
to the Chair and not to a perceived viewing audience.
____________________